Microblogging, Constituency Service and Impression Management - UK Mps and the Use of Twitter
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Microblogging, constituency service and impression management - UK MPs and the use of Twitter Abstract Twitter, a microblogging site which allows users to deliver statements, thoughts and links in 140 characters to followers as well as a wider Internet audience, is the latest online communications technology adopted by MPs. Assessing the use of early adopters, this article considers which MPs are most likely to use Twitter (e.g. tweeting), and how. Content analysis of tweeting MPs was conducted, and identified personal and political characteristics which may influence use. The data suggested that of the six characteristics tested, gender, party and seniority had most impact on adoption. Applying Jones and Pittman’s (1982) typology there is clear evidence that MPs use Twitter as a tool of impression management. Constituency service is a secondary function of the use of Twitter by MPs. Where MPs use Twitter as part of their constituency role it is to promote their local activity. We note that a small group of MPs use Twitter as a regular communication channel, but most are only occasionally dipping their toe into the microbloggersphere. Introduction Labour MP and Minister Alan Johnson claims to be the first UK politician to have used Twitter. Johnson tweeted using the non-de-plume Johnson4Deputy from March to June 2007 as part of his Labour Party deputy leadership campaign. He lost, but his use of Twitter gained him and this communication tool media coverage (Jones 2007). The number of Twitter users has increased significantly; it is estimated that in the year to February 2009 visitors increased 1,382% from 475,000 to 7 million (McGiboney 2009), up to 10 million in June 2009 (BBC 2009). Twitter’s popularity raises the question of whether politicians feel that Twitter is a bandwagon they need to jump on. Alternatively, they might view Twitter as a strategic communication channel, a way of reaching key audiences efficiently and effectively. These are not new questions, research suggests that bandwagon was the prime motive of MPs’ adoption of websites (Ward & Gibson 1998, Jackson 2003, Ward & Lusoli 2005). However, the adoption of subsequent online tools and applications is a more complex process, with an array of motives. Whilst some MPs jumped on to the bandwagon by adopting e-newsletters (Jackson 2006a), weblogs (Francoli & Ward 2008) and social networking sites (Jackson & Lilleker 2009), others have a strategic purpose and are using such technologies to enhance their ability to perform their representative role. A few pioneering MPs may be using online applications to create a discrete model of e-representation; a form of representation that is entirely based online and is an adjunct to the more traditional interpersonal model between MPs and their constituents (Jackson 2008). This article examines the features and functions of microblogging sites such as Twitter and how they might impact upon MPs’ execution of representation. Next we will use a theoretical framework for assessing the use of Twitter by UK MPs. Third, we will operationalise a methodology for assessing this framework. Last, we will assess how this framework explains how UK MPs use Twitter. The rise of microblogging Twitter, like Tumblr and Jaiku is a microblogging site, which allows people to post brief updates of up to 140 characters that can supply up to the minute information, instant responses to questions or wider issues of the moment and links to websites (Grossbeck & Holostensen 2008). These updates can be posted using the Twitter website, a range of desktop tools that allow the management of feeds such as Tweetdeck or from mobile 3G devices. Therefore, microblogging has lowered the barriers, in terms of thought investment by users (Java et al. 2007). Twitter has become popular because its users, ’Tweeters’, can send and receive messages via a wide range of delivery mechanisms (Mischand 2007, Grossbeck & Holotesen 2008, Krishnamurthy et al. 2008). Twitter users can choose to follow large numbers of other users and so mainly receive, or follow very few other users but encourage users to follow them. Tweeters who have more people follow them than they follow arguably aim to broadcast messages (Krishnamurthy 2008). Others have more reciprocal relationships with users and may both follow and be followed by a distinct community, or may simply follow a wide array of tweeters in order to gain news and updates without personally communicating a great deal. Inherently, Twitter appears to have encouraged a hierarchy of users (Java et al. 2007). When launched in October 2006, Facebook’s creators stated that Twitter’s purpose was for tweeters to answer the question ‘what are you doing?’ (Mischand 2007). Twitter was designed to promote an update of people’s daily activities to bring them closer together within networks of interest (Stevens 2008). By far the most popular use of Twitter is for self-promotion. A study of 300,000 Twitter users by Heal and Piskorski (2009) notes that 90% of posts are one way, one-to-many broadcast communication, rather than two-way, many-to-many interaction. Therefore, most tweeters follow the notion of promotion by talking about themselves. Despite Alan Johnson’s efforts, interest in politicians’ use of Twitter only took off when Barack Obama and John Edwards used it to let their supporters know where they were and of upcoming events during the Democratic Party primaries in the United States (Mischand 2007). They hoped that their followers would re-tweet such details to their friends, and so snowballing the effect of the original post. During the U.S. Presidential campaign Obama’s Twitter account gained 118,107 followers (Fraser & Dutta 2008), compared to the 4,600 following McCain. This suggests that Obama gave serious consideration to how he could increase his number of Twitter followers. Certainly, some commentators suggest that his use of Twitter was an important component of his online campaign strategy (Stirland 2008, Greengard 2009). In the UK, one commentator suggested that some MPs tweets have a ‘slight dad-on-the- dance floor feel’ in an attempt to appear cool (Sylvester 2009). However, an alternative view suggests that the purpose of tweeting is to keep in close touch with their constituents. For example, Bradley Joyce from Tweetcongress.org noted that tweeting helped politicians quickly and clearly reach constituents (Hurden 2009). Giving support to this, Lynne Featherstone (Lib Dem), noted that “Many of my constituents are on Twitter, and it makes sense for me to be so too” (Featherstone 2009). A more electoral minded approach was provided by Tom Watson (Lab) in trying to encourage colleagues to sign up to Twitter, when he said “It will make it easier for Labour MPs to engage with their constituents.” (Labour Party New 2009). Others have suggested that such applications should be approached with caution, with Conservative leader David Cameron famously saying on Absolute Radio that “too many twits might make a twat” (Guardian, 2009; politics blog July 29th). One view suggests, therefore, that twitter is not something to be taken serious by politicians, but another views twitter as fitting a strategic view of the role of an MP, or how they get re-elected. UK parliamentarians have been active on other online platforms, using them in different ways. MPs websites have essentially been one-way content led electronic brochures (Ward & Lusoli 2005), whereas their e-newsletters seek to build relationships with constituents (Jackson 2006). MP’s weblogs have largely been used to promote their political work and thinking on current affairs (Francoli & Ward 2007), with limited evidence of interactivity. MPs have also been active across social networking sites, particularly Facebook, and sites which allow the sharing of videos and photographs. Where MPs are merely jumping on the bandwagon, their online presence has a fairly minimal role and at best is weak impression management, and may in fact lead to negative impression management for net-savvy visitors. However, the minority of pioneering MPs present a different model, where the Intenret is used to enhance their reputation and meet strategic goals in terms of electioneering or representation. The ability to connect with the politician and any subsequent interactions between visitors and the MP lead to positive impressions among all visitors (Utz, 2008). Whilst MPs have used the Internet to promote their party, the evidence is that increasingly the focus has been on promoting themselves. Theoretical Framework Our assessment of the use of Twitter by MPs will be underpinned by two interrelated theories. Given that one trait of Twitter is for users to self-promote we shall apply impression management, then with the proposed link between tweeting MPs and their constituents, we assess use within a constituency service framework. We argue that MPs will seek to attain a personal vote through being good constituency servants, however, in order to demonstrate the activities they carry out as part of this role they must have an impression management strategy to publicise their achievements. Twitter we suggest can be one tool that can fit within this strategy. Impression Management According to Goffman (1959), individuals consciously seek to manage what impression they give to others via their interpersonal relations. Subsequent research has developed a consensus around a definition of impression management, based on self-promotion: individuals deliberately seeking to manage the public perception of them (Tetlock & Manstead 1985, Rosenfeld et al. 1995, Singh & Vinnicombe 2001), towards key audiences is at the heart of impression management. Therefore, as Leary and Kowalski (1990) suggest, impression management involves two components: the motivation to create favourable impressions; and the ability to impress the target audience. Jones and Pittman (1982) provide a typology for understanding impression management, within which actors need not be engaged in just one behaviour. This argues that those who seek to influence the perception of others display one or more of five behaviours.